Conservative Activist Sues Law Firms Over Diversity Fellowships
Edward Blum, the conservative activist known for his involvement in the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action in college admissions, has taken his efforts to dismantle diversity initiatives in the private sector to the next level. Blum’s organization, the American Alliance for Equal Rights, has filed lawsuits against two corporate law firms, Perkins Coie LLP and Morrison & Foerster, accusing them of excluding applicants based on their race in their diversity fellowship programs.
Blum argues that these racially-exclusive programs are unfair, polarizing, and illegal. He insists that these law firms should make their fellowships available to all applicants, regardless of race. Perkins Coie and Morrison & Foerster have yet to comment on the lawsuits.
The lawsuit against Perkins Coie focuses on two paid fellowships for first- and second-year law students. The filing claims that these fellowships are limited to students of color, those who identify as LGBTQ+, and students with disabilities. Blum argues that such requirements discriminate based on race and violate Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
The lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order that would prevent the law firm from selecting fellows, as well as a permanent injunction to end the programs. Additionally, the lawsuit aims to declare that these fellowship programs violate the civil rights statute.
Morrison & Foerster, headquartered in San Francisco, is also being sued for its racially-exclusive fellowship program. With over 1,000 attorneys and offices worldwide, the law firm is accused of discriminating against future lawyers by operating a program specifically for individuals of Black, Latinx, Indigenous descent, and LGBTQ+ community members.
This recent wave of legal action against diversity initiatives in the private sector comes after the Supreme Court’s ruling against racial consideration in college and university admissions. Some see this as an opportunity to extend the Court’s race-blind stance to the employment sphere. The lawsuits filed by Blum’s organization are part of a bigger push to challenge corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
However, legal experts argue that the practices used by companies to increase diversity and inclusion in their ranks are not the same as the affirmative action tactics used in college admissions. Private employers are generally prohibited from using race as a deciding factor in employment matters. Stacy Hawkins, a law professor specializing in diversity, explains that the most risky action an employer can take is to explicitly base employment decisions on race or gender.
Nevertheless, opposition to DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) practices in the private sector has been growing. Some argue that these efforts amount to reverse discrimination. Concerns over legal claims and political pressures are causing companies to backtrack on their DEI commitments made in the wake of events like George Floyd’s murder.
The legal battles against Perkins Coie and Morrison & Foerster shed light on the complex intersection of civil rights legislation and diversity initiatives. The lawsuits are using federal laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which were originally intended to protect the rights of marginalized groups, to claim that companies’ attempts to address racial inequality qualify as racial discrimination.
Kenneth Davis, a professor of law and ethics, notes the irony that laws designed to ensure equal opportunity for people of color are now being weaponized to deny them their rights. As the legal battle continues, the outcome could have significant implications for the future of diversity initiatives in the private sector and the interpretation of civil rights laws.